• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Mr Scott appeared for the respondents. He argued that s 62 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 did not permit Mr Redfern, of Russell Kennedy, to represent Nellaton. Mr Scott relied on the statutory provisions governing when a party may use a professional advocate and how a body corporate may be represented. He argued that none of the circumstances in s 62(1)(b) applied and pointed out that Nellaton had a director present who had not chosen to represent the company.

Mr Redfern relied on s 62(1)(c), which allows a party to be represented by a person, including a professional advocate, whom the Tribunal permits or specifies. He also relied on Practice Note PNRT1, applicable to the Retail Tenancies List. The note said the Tribunal would ordinarily permit representation by a legal practitioner. Mr Redfern further noted that Mr Scott had completed his examinations and was qualified for graduation in law, although he did not yet hold a law degree.

The Deputy President permitted Mr Redfern to represent Nellaton. The decision also addressed an alleged conflict of interest. Russell Kennedy acted for ANZ Executor and Trustee Company Limited, which administered the estate of Ms Hanna's deceased brother. The Deputy President accepted Mr Redfern's account that his contact with those acting for the estate had been limited to identifying the connection between the matters and informing them that a conflict issue had been raised. The decision records no apparent transfer of confidential information from the estate matter to the tenancy matter.

The order was limited: “The applicant is entitled to be represented by a professional advocate in the person of Mr M. Redfern of Russell Kennedy.” It did not decide whether Donawa, Ms Hanna, or Mr Scott were liable, whether any guarantee applied, or whether the respondents' summary dismissal application should succeed.

Why the court decided this way

The statutory basis for permission was s 62(1)(c), quoted in the reasons as providing that a party “may be represented by any person (including a professional advocate) permitted or specified by the Tribunal”. The Deputy President accepted Mr Redfern's application for permission under that provision. The decision did not rest on an unqualified right for every corporate party to use a lawyer; it involved the Tribunal's permission in this proceeding.

The Retail Tenancies List practice note was an important part of the reasoning. It stated that the Tribunal would ordinarily permit a party to be represented by a legal practitioner. The Deputy President described the note as stating the practice of the List since it began on 1 July 1998. The judgment also identified the nature of the legal work as relevant: retail tenancy law was “quite complex”, and lawyers arguing the parties' cases could assist the Tribunal.

A further consideration was the relative position of the representatives. Although Mr Scott was not a “professional advocate” under the definition referred to in s 62(8), he had, according to his own account, passed his examinations and qualified for graduation. The Deputy President considered that his substantive legal qualifications supported allowing Nellaton to have a qualified lawyer represent it. The reasons frame this as a fairness consideration in the context of the application, rather than as a general rule that one party's legal studies automatically give the other party a right to legal representation.

The Deputy President also referred to lawyers' professional obligations. The reasons state that a lawyer appearing before a court or tribunal must do more than argue the client's case strongly: the lawyer must also draw binding authorities to the tribunal's attention, including authorities that do not support the client. The Deputy President described this as an overriding duty to the Tribunal. This was part of the explanation for why legal representation could assist the Tribunal, rather than a separate statutory test.

On the conflict question, the Deputy President considered the connection between Russell Kennedy's two matters and the information said to have passed between them. One client was Nellaton; the other was ANZ Executor and Trustee Company Limited, administrator of an estate. The matters concerned different issues. The Deputy President understood that Mr Redfern had told the lawyers acting on the estate about the tenancy proceeding and the conflict allegation, rather than receiving confidential estate information from them. On that account, the Deputy President saw no basis to prevent the firm from continuing to act in the tenancy proceeding.

Before and after state of the law

This decision is a short ruling about the application of an existing statutory permission power and a Retail Tenancies List practice note. It does not purport to create or comprehensively restate the law of representation at VCAT. The statutory language quoted in the reasons, s 62(1)(c), gives the Tribunal power to permit representation by a person, including a professional advocate. The practice note described the List's ordinary approach to legal practitioners. The decision applies those sources to Nellaton's application.

The reasons also set out other parts of s 62. Mr Scott relied on s 62(1)(b) and s 62(3), and the Deputy President recorded his submissions about those provisions. The Tribunal's decision, however, turned on the permission pathway in s 62(1)(c), rather than finding that one of the s 62(1)(b) circumstances applied. The order therefore demonstrates the use of the Tribunal's permission power in this particular Retail Tenancies List proceeding.

The decision does not describe an earlier legal position or an amendment to the law before or after 28 April 2009. Nor does it cite other judgments or state that it altered a prior rule. Any account of legislative change, subsequent amendments, or the current operation of s 62 would require sources beyond this judgment.

As to conflicts, the decision records a fact-specific assessment. It does not set out a comprehensive test for conflicts involving law firms, define when information is confidential, or address situations where relevant confidential information has in fact been received. Its reasoning is tied to the Deputy President's understanding that the clients and issues differed and no confidential information had passed between the two matters. It should not be read as deciding every situation in which a firm acts for different clients in separate proceedings.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The judgment quotes s 62(1)(c): a party “may be represented by any person (including a professional advocate) permitted or specified by the Tribunal”. In plain English, the provision gives the Tribunal a role in deciding whether a person may represent a party. In this case, the Tribunal used that permission power to allow Nellaton's lawyer to appear.

The Retail Tenancies List practice note said the Tribunal “will ordinarily permit the party to be represented by a legal practitioner”. The Deputy President relied on that stated practice and on the complexity of retail tenancy law. In practical terms, the List's ordinary approach supported legal representation, though the note and the statutory permission were applied in the context of the specific application.

The Deputy President said that the law governing retail tenancies was “quite complex” and that it was “always of assistance to the Tribunal to have lawyers arguing the case for parties before it”. This explains the institutional reason given for allowing legal practitioners to appear: their assistance may help the Tribunal deal with complex legal issues.

The reasons also describe lawyers' professional obligations as including a duty to identify binding authorities even if they do not support the lawyer's client. Put simply, the Deputy President regarded a lawyer's obligation to the Tribunal as relevant to the usefulness of legal representation. This observation was not a finding about any particular authority in the underlying tenancy dispute.

On the conflict point, the Deputy President referred to the different clients and issues and the apparent absence of confidential information passing from one matter to the other. The plain-English meaning is that the asserted connection between the estate matter and the tenancy proceeding was not, on the information before the Tribunal, enough to disqualify the firm. The decision does not establish what the result would be if confidential information had passed or if the matters had materially overlapping issues.

Finally, the Deputy President recorded that a complaint was before the Legal Services Commissioner and said that a different view by the Commissioner could be given effect. This makes clear that the VCAT ruling addressed the objection before it; it did not determine the outcome of that separate complaint.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to a representation issue in a VCAT Retail Tenancies List proceeding where a party seeks permission to use a legal practitioner under s 62(1)(c), and Practice Note PNRT1 is relevant. The features considered by the Deputy President included the practice note's ordinary approach, the complexity of retail tenancy law, and the other side's representative having substantial legal studies.

It may also be relevant where an objection to a law firm acting is based on the firm's separate retainer for another client. In this case, the alleged connection was that the firm acted for the administrator of an estate involving a respondent's deceased brother. The Deputy President considered whether the clients and issues differed and whether confidential information appeared to have moved between the matters.

The decision is narrower where the factual circumstances differ. It does not resolve a case where a firm has received confidential information relevant to the proceeding, where the matters overlap, or where other facts affect the assessment of the alleged conflict. It also does not address a general right to representation in VCAT proceedings outside the statutory and practice-note setting discussed in the reasons.

The judgment should not be treated as deciding the merits of a landlord-tenant claim, a guarantee, or a summary dismissal application. Its significance is procedural: permission to be represented and the particular conflict objection were dealt with before the substantive application.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no later judicial decisions and cites no earlier cases. It therefore provides no information about whether later courts or tribunals have followed, distinguished, applied, or criticised its reasoning. The precedent-relationship field is accordingly empty.

The decision's own reasoning refers to the Retail Tenancies List practice note and provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. It does not identify another judgment as the source of its approach to legal representation or conflicts. Any assessment of later treatment would require later decisions or other legal sources not included here.

The judgment also records that a complaint was before the Legal Services Commissioner. It does not report a subsequent decision by the Commissioner. The Deputy President only observed that, if the Commissioner took a different view, that view could be given effect. No outcome of the complaint can be inferred from this decision.

Still-open questions

The decision leaves open how the Tribunal would exercise its permission power in circumstances unlike those before it. The reasons explain why permission was granted here, but do not catalogue all relevant considerations under s 62(1)(c), or decide whether any particular factor is necessary or sufficient.

The reasons mention s 62(8)'s definition of “professional advocate” and find that Mr Scott did not fall strictly within it because he did not hold a law degree. The Deputy President nevertheless considered his completed examinations and qualification for graduation relevant to fairness. The judgment does not decide how a different level of legal training, experience, or lack of legal knowledge would affect a representation application.

On conflicts, the decision leaves open what would happen if the matters involved the same or closely related issues, or if confidential information had been imparted and was relevant to the proceeding. It does not set out a broader professional conduct framework or address how any such concern should be assessed beyond the facts presented.

Finally, the judgment does not establish the current wording or present-day operation of the statutory provisions or practice note. Its findings concern the sources and circumstances described in the 2009 decision. This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes; before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.